Nonsense on Stilts

The Nancy Gibbs article JF talks about is a good example of how to wrap extremist BS in a nice-sounding package -- and how to call for government intervention based on hypotheticals that produce a "Yuck!" reaction.

She starts by invoking a bunch of over-the-top scary examples, then cites both conservative and liberal objections to make herself sound balanced and moderate. Then she jumps straight into a radical, hard core position without examining what its implications. As JF points out, the first effect is radically decreasing the odds of IVF working -- there would only be a 50% chance of transferring even a single viable embryo! Mind you, we're talking about an expensive, emotionally consuming procedure that only has about a 50% success rate starting from the best possible embryos.

But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Because if you think it out, the next step is to say, well, why not transfer a bunch of embryos and then selectively reduce if too many implant. This is far less safe than the way they do it now (and strikes me as bordering on morally reprehensible), but it seems to fit with the rules printed in the article. But not the spirit. So clearly their program will require outlawing this form of abortion. (It seems like it also would require outlawing any timed-intercourse cycle which routinely produces many eggs, as they always have a scary chance of producing dangerous numbers of embryos.)

If they take the principles they state seriously, the logical conclusion is you have to outlaw abortion altogether for all couples, not just IVF patients. (Well, I suppose they might allow a rape exception.) There's just no sane way you can hold that embryos are inviolable, but fetuses are disposable.

Notice the way this works: in two short paragraphs, Gibbs jumps straight from the freakshow example of trying to give birth to an entire softball team at once to outlawing abortion and preventing couples from using the best available assisted techniques to help them get one or two healthy children. There's no chain of logic there; just two examples of something that could hypothetically be done via IVF, one normal and sensible, one ridiculous and completely imaginary to the best of my knowledge.

In the next paragraph she jumps to European countries that limit the number of embryos that can be implemented -- for financial reasons! Of course, this is allowing the law to overrule your doctor's good judgment of the best treatment for your issues to save a few bucks. And it's completely unrelated to the idea of not allowing screening -- you can bet that these let you make more than embryo and choose the best possible.

Let me point out "reproductive tourists" show the complete insanity of trying to ban this sort of thing. Unless that ban is enforced across the entire globe, it's just going to make couples head for greener pastures. On average, the ban would add about $30,000 (and loads of extra heartbreak) to the cost of a successful IVF cycle. That makes plane tickets to India seem like a bargain.

Then another freakshow "Yuck!" example, apparently of what might happen if you only partially enacted the suggestions in the third paragraph (all embryos must be transfered, but at least you get to screen them). Also note that this touches on some deep philosophical issues -- is Gibbs implying those embryos would be better off not being created than being raised by adoptive parents?

The final paragraph attempts to scare us with the specter of screening. It skips right past how the unambiguously positive screening for major diseases would be outlawed under the paragraph three rules. (Nothing like doing your best to add to the sorrow in the world, while patting yourself on the back about how ethical you are being.) Then it presents screening choices that are at worst crass, and concludes that the government has to intervene -- even though the major parties that are harmed if they don't are embryos that are not used. It's moving past "We're doing it for the children!" to "We're doing it for the embryos!"